nathan j robinson fired a bunch of staff at current affairs mag for trying to organize a workers co op so you'll forgive me if i disagree with 'most vindicated man alive' on principle
I wish I could find his response to this 'cause it was stronger than I thought. Most of those writers are as bad if not worse than him politically and want control over something that was mostly his work and already run fairly horizontally.
Edit: found it here: https://yasminnair.com/march-what-really-happened-at-current-affairs/
What happened at Current Affairs is not the story of a malevolent overlord oppressing his minions but a much more mundane one about the inevitable fate that befalls too many left institutions: the magazine was overtaken by what Jo Freeman has termed “The Tyranny of Structurelessness.” This is the mistaken idea that informal structures with ill-defined positions are more truly radical and leftist than those with systems of accountability.
This was my impression as the story unfolded, and I've seen similar things in lots of other small groups that take on big projects. At some point you have to grow out of the ad hoc stage, and that can cause issues between folks who have contributed to different degrees.
So basically, the staff's story was that they were all fired for trying to organize, when in reality they were not fired and they were not trying to organize.
honestly stunning.
A lot of folks here and elsewhere on the left ate it up uncritically, too. Calls for some self-crit on how we respond to these sorts of accusations in the future.
Yeah wow. I just read most of it. Just... absolutely embarrassing. That one guy who literally didn't even work at the magazine and followed Nathan into a store screaming at him is really blowing my mind. And honestly, I really am just like "why" and "how".
I remember reading that and my main takeaway was that it's a buddy of Nathan's that lacks a lot of actual knowledge and substance and relies heavily on tone and innuendo.
Nope, not what happened, he's already been vindicated for it. Most vindicated man alive.
PROOF: https://yasminnair.com/march-what-really-happened-at-current-affairs/
is there a cliff's notes for this incredibly meandering, lengthy article?
tldr as far as I remember:
Nathan Robinson: Guys can we please come up with some kind of structure to this magazine that is my actual full time job so that it ships out on time and our Patreon supporters get their rewards? Also, the person we hired to answer the phones and do basic secretarial work isn't doing the thing we're paying her to do.
Current Affairs writers: ummm idk like we just like doing this cool thing with our friends, um it's like socialist which means anyone does what they want whenever cause it's just like whatever man
Nathan Robinson: Dawg I got my mom doing administrative work for free here because there's no organization, I'm open to anything, maybe a company structure or a co-op or whatever, but shit needs to get done.
CA writers: Umm maybe a co-op because we're epic socialists. Also the secretary we hired can be an artist or some shit, also this other person you refused to hire needs to get another job and we don't like the person you did hire.
Magazine implodes
CA writers: Nathan Robinson fired us for doing co-op socialism :angery:
Having read through way too much of that lengthy article (that has plenty of receipts), basically yes. Robinson can be criticized for not being a great manager (though he was in a difficult situation, too), but the stuff about union busting and even simply the accusations of firing people hold zero water.
There's also a fair amount about how the departing staff were informed they would be getting severance pay, and Robinson even suggested more severance pay than they initially asked for, but they were still seeking donations on Venmo and CashApp. If there's a grifter here it's not Robinson.
Yeah this is absolutely embarrassing and sad. I feel petty bad for Nathan here. Tbh I used to listen to the podcast and it was good. I found it actually kinda surprising that Nathan did union busting but I didn't know him so I was just like "damn that sucks". But now this really sucks, because I thought he was a funny little guy and read him as legitimately caring about the left (even if I disagree with him on quite a few things).
stop feeling bad for kautskyites and grow up. politics isn't about the feelings of political figures.
Oh fuck off. No need to be aggressive with me or talk to me like I'm a child. I can have empathetic feelings towards people who are getting death threats because they were lied about. It has nothing to do with my understanding of what politics are
No. Grow up and stop getting parasocial attachments to leftoids that lead you into doing mental gymnastics to excuse social imperialists. I will talk however I want.
Divert your empathy towards the actual oppressed and workers of the world and not rich dandy parasocial mini-celebs who don’t give a shit about them and encourage imperialism against the actual suffering people.
Fascists and libs and Chuds all get death threats too. Doesn’t vindicate any of them or make any of their political positions more correct
Guys can we please come up with some kind of structure
radlibs will shit on Stalin and then follow his exact leadership style for their dogshit rag lol
You already nailed it, it's very repetitive and mostly relies on telling you what conclusion to have rather than laying out a compelliy case. It's also a buddy of Nathan's that, I believe, joined after a lot of this has gone down or was otherwise not personally knowledgeable of it, being someone that wrote very rarely.
Also failed to address the key accusations.
As an example of how it relies on innuendo, it spends a lot of time talking about an alleged harassment campaign and saying someone who wasn't an employee was engaged in it and how this is all terrible. It's even convinced several hexbears in this thread. Of course, badmouthing a conniving employer on Twitter and telling him he sucks in a grocery store when you happen to randomly see him is not exactly a harassment campaign, it's just basic naming and shaming we tend to celebrate here. And that person that wasn't an employee? Well they're the long-time partner of an employee that was in the thick of it and went through this ordeal with them. Nothing strange about that.
Yeah, I read a bit of the italicized intro that started out saying they're definitely not writing this to defend their friend, then sort of smoothly transitions into just defending their friend in a fairly weird, immature way (paragraphs of describing mean things said about their friend) and gave up when I got to the "ackshully he didn't even have the authority to fire the people he told were fired" which is far from a defense of Robinson and more like yet another shitty thing Robinson has done
my conclusion is that probably most of the people involved are a little bit too impressed with themselves and robinson still sucks
Yeah I'm annoyed I have to think about this again lol. Not annoyed at anyone here, lol, just don't think this is worth spending time thinking about but can't help myself
I have a hard time believing we read the same thing.
rather than laying out a compelliy case
It shows conversations with and between the people involved and the author viewed Zoom recordings of their meetings (and references them). What other evidence are you looking for?
Also failed to address the key accusations.
The key accusation is "he fired employees for unionizing." It makes clear that no one was fired and no unionization was attempted.
Doesn't it make it clear that Robinson told people they were fired, or should resign, when he didn't have the authority to do so?
He asked for a few people to resign, yes, and he didn't have the authority to fire them, yes.
What's the difference between this and firing someone? They knew he couldn't fire them (which makes their "I was fired here's where you can donate" tweets extremely bad in my eyes), so they could and did refuse to resign, and they kept getting paid even as the magazine went on hiatus and they did no work.
Asking people to resign when you don't have the authority to do so isn't really redeeming, to me
- Person A is a little more senior in an organization than Person B, and Person A delegates some work to Person B.
- Over time, there is some dispute over how well Person B is doing their job.
- Person A asks Person B to resign.
- Person B stays, and keeps getting paid, because they know Person A can't fire them.
- Person B tweets out "I've been fired, donate here."
Is "Person A fired Person B" at all a fair characterization of that situation? I don't see any way someone who claims they were fired and asks for money while still drawing a paycheck is in the right -- they're just straight-up lying.
There's room to criticize Robinson for not handling a difficult situation particularly well (and for not setting up a better group structure in the first place), but this is wildly different than "he fired employees for unionizing." There's was certainly no effort to unionize, in any case.
This is all based off a single, extremely badly written diatribe, right? I truly don't understand why one screed suddenly has more weight than any other screed, particularly when it's quite clear it's just NJR's friend defending their friend. The best I'm willing to grant is that it sure sounds like every single person involved in the dispute is insufferable and shouldn't be published or paid attention to.
extremely badly written diatribe
Come on. It posts receipts, names names, and is a conventionally-formatted narrative.
As for who's credible here: I'm sure not going with the people who (at minimum) lied about being fired so they could grift money over twitter. They also declined to be interviewed for the article and never piped up to dispute the key "not actually fired" part despite continuing to tweet about the situation years after the fact.
it sure sounds like every single person involved in the dispute is insufferable and shouldn't be published or paid attention to
One reason "only me and my five online friends are True Leftists" is so popular is that being dismissive is easy. Mao and Stalin worked closely with plenty of leftists who didn't have perfect takes on everything, and even allied for a time with reactionaries like the KMT and U.S. That's the reality of a mass movement, not writing off people who are closer to you than probably 95% of the U.S. population.
I guess it's conventionally formatted, in that it's in paragraph format, but it sure spends a huge amount of time listing all the mean things people have said about the author's friend that aren't really relevant, and if it gets to actual receipt-posting it's so far down the narrative that anybody who isn't already fully on board with NJR is not likely to make it that far. Regardless, nobody here is Mao or Stalin, none of us are leading parties with influence or power in our western hellholes. Beyond that, is NJR read by anybody not on the left? Is he bringing people into the left? Does anybody take him seriously, even before the "unionization" flap? Does a left movement need run-of-the-mill western chauvinists speaking for it?
This is a site for shitposting, and even if it were a site for organizing then NJR's influence and utility would be in doubt.
They also declined to be interviewed for the article and never piped up to dispute the key "not actually fired" part despite continuing to tweet about the situation years after the fact.
No kidding, the people who are mad at NJR didn't want to be interviewed by NJR's personal friend writing a defense of NJR? Damn, that's wild huh
if it gets to actual receipt-posting
So you didn't even read it. No investigation, no right to speak.
Like I said, it's a poorly written, way too long screed. Hope the NJR fan club readings of the thing go well though!
It's OK to not read something, it's ridiculous to not read something then write several paragraph or longer comments adamantly insisting you're right about it. Do some self-crit.
Love to read something written by somebody's friend in defense of that friend and immediately assume it's 100% correct and factual and get mad at people who exercise a little bit more discretion
Shut the fuck up. You didn't read it, you don't get to talk about its content. I've spoonfed you some of it (and some signs it's credible) but you ignored that, too, so just shut the fuck up.
Have you read the original Twitter thread + Google doc?
It shows conversations with and between the people involved and the author viewed Zoom recordings of their meetings (and references them). What other evidence are you looking for?
Evidence for what? They didn't even lay out a coherent rationale given the original accusations backed up by the rest of the staff.
The key accusation is "he fired employees for unionizing."
No it isn't lol. That isn't even their accusation.
It makes clear that no one was fired and no unionization was attempted.
They already had a union. NJR firing them was precipitated by him getting cold feet about collectivizing as a co-op. He then sent out messages asserting his status as The Boss, got pushback for reneging, and then started firing people, and it became a shitshow from there.
Dithering about whether he technically 🤓 had the power to do so isn't particularly relevant unless someone is going to start suing. He used his position of power as the founder and active editor to start telling people they need to go and they reasonably understood he was firing them. Also, being at a small workplace where the main person wants you gone isn't exactly a great environment, especially when they are this incompetent, so I would've doubted anyone was super excited about suing to get their job back.
I will never apologize for saying he looks stupid. Dressing like Dr Who is bad.
https://www.theonion.com/man-always-gets-little-rush-out-of-telling-people-john-1819578998
It's me. I hate boomers and boomer culture. Fuck john lemon beetles songs sucked.
libeling a fellow traveler because i get a little psychic rush, and i get to show off my orthodox bona fides, without doing any research on the accusations, is cool and good actually.
It’s amazing how generation after generation of western “leftists” fall for this same shit
He’s a social fascist who attacks Marxist revolutions from his cozy spot in the imperial core. Fuck him he’s no ally
He's not a Marxist? Damn I guess it's good to spread libel then
What Libel? He is social democrat westerner who attacks AES that his nation is at war with (such as DPRK). This is fact. He’s a social fascist. Sorry you don’t like facts that correctly identify your parasocial friend as a Kautskyite opportunist
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/04/attempting-to-understand-north-korea
Why is his “socialist” publication repeating all the western talking points about DPRK, a country he knows nothing about and even admits as much before repeating “authoritarian dictatorship, mountains of human suffering” BS.
I'd like to add John Lennon really does suck ass and the Beatles suck (this is not a joke, the original bit about a guy who gets a rush out of trashing Lennon sucks, you should trash people, it's fun)
social fascist
This implies he supports U.S. imperialism, which he does not.
Making up shit about other leftists and throwing "fascist" around like "asshole" is actually bad and counterproductive
All social democrats in the imperial core are social fascists. Sorry you don’t like reality “social fascist” is a specific term you should look up, it fits here and was invented for this very use against “fellow traveler” imperialists
He attacks DPRK, a country his nation is at war with. That supports US imperialism
Same. Current Affairs was one of my go-to publications back in the day and now I don’t even visit it. Grifter ass britisher wannabe.
Wrong, he's super vindicated, most vindicated man alive
I hate Robinson's weak tea ass ideas of "socialism" but I find the case here incredibly convincing, he did nothing wrong
There are some good lessons here in how not to respond to accusations:
The Current Affairs matter is not simply a fight among friends that spilled out: left institutions got involved without getting multiple sides of the story. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) branch in New Orleans ejected Robinson as a member with a statement that erroneously copied the charge of “union busting.” This was in violation of DSA procedure, because there was no hearing or opportunity to rebut the charges, only a public notification that Robinson was out. The International Workers of the World Freelance Journalist Union issued a solidarity letter condemning Robinson’s “authoritarian act” of “retaliatory firings.”
No investigation, no right to speak, and certainly no right for an organization to take action against a member.
Edit: Forgot the wildest part of that anecdote
Robinson filed an appeal, pointing out that he had not been granted due process. In a bizarre twist of events, the DSA’s National Harassment Grievance Officer [corrected to reflect proper title], Paula Brantner, wrote to him in March 2023 that not only was his expulsion to continue but that he was now accused–and found guilty of–“charges of harrassment, threats, and attacks on another member’s character.” Robinson pointed out that these charges, of which he has been found guilty, were unknown to him and that he had been given no chance to dispute them. In response, Brantner wrote, “The DSA grievance process is not a legal process, and so the same ‘due process’ guarantees” …are not part of this process” (she is paid a controversial salary of of $360,000, as a part-time consultant, to engage in such fulsome communications).
$360K to not even do basic stuff like "hey maybe we should hear from this guy like our procedures mandate," and not even do it full time.
Brantner wrote, “The DSA grievance process is not a legal process, and so the same ‘due process’ guarantees” …are not part of this process”
I thought the point of organizing and setting up parallel structures was that you took them seriously and they had legitimacy when you went and replaced the old ones you're overthrowing with the new ones you've been using
Still making my way through it since you posted it. Got other stuff to do today too. But damn.
I’m sorry Bri’ish boy.
This "NJR's bravest soldier" bit has more legs than I originally thought, well done
Same. I now file him under “compatible left” along with Chomsky and most of the New Left/Frankfurt School.
Yeah, the specific false accusations are irrelevant when his actual beliefs on socialist states are public and dogshit
As I recall, his views on AES states are anarchist critiques, which I don't personally agree with but (at least on Hexbear) are well within the realm of "I can work with this person."
Would really like to see what the guy thinks of Michael Parenti.
Nope Americans don’t get to attack Marxist states. He’s an imperialist
Why? Being an 'American' automatically makes their critique irrelevant? Or is every Marxist state completely above critique? I am not the type of American that shuns AES states like many 'left' in the US but I don't think any group or state is magically above judgement. In my view, this type of dogmatism and 'imperialist' labeling only helps shun potential comrades that could be brought further into the fold.
For every member of parliament, every editor, every secretary of a labour union, every journalist and public leader can always gather the information kept secret by the government and the financiers that reveals the truth about the real basis of imperialist deals. A socialist’s failure to fulfil this duty is a betrayal of socialism. There need be no doubt that no government will allow, especially now, free publication of exposures of its real policy, its treaties, financial deals, etc. That is no reason to renounce such exposures. Rather it is a reason to renounce servile submission to the censorship and publish the facts freely, i.e., uncensored, illegally.
For the Socialist of another country cannot expose the government and bourgeoisie of a country at war with “his own” nation, and not only because he does not know that country’s language, history, specific features, etc., but also because such exposure is part of imperialist intrigue, and not an internationalist duty.
He is not an internationalist who vows and swears by internationalism. Only he is an internationalist who in a really internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites.
(b) In every country the Socialist must above all emphasise in all his propaganda the need to distrust not only every political phrase of his own government, but also every political phrase of his own social-chauvinists, who in reality serve that government.
He fails this test. He fails his duty. He is an imperialist social fascist because he fixated on the enemies of his nation instead of revolutionary defeatism of his own nation. This is the litmus test for being “in the fold”. He can drop his chauvinism and correct his behavior, or he can continue being a social fascist Kautskyite.
Thank you for helping elucidate this concept for me. I suppose the disagreement I had was just labeling anyone as such, in my view people are not their actions, while people have patterns of action and often can't break from that pattern, I don't believe anyone truly is anything and can change depending on their conditions, so it was more of a reaction to the phrasing. But arguing semantics is a waste of time, so I see now your original comment was a fine descriptor, I don't know much about Robinson though tbh. A nice thing about hexbear is that you can be more blunt with language, and generally around here people will know what you are getting at.
I have to perfectly honest, once one steps into the realm of being a political figure one loses all individual sympathy or human qualities. One willingly becomes a symbol representing a certain type of politics and certain interests, based on one’s statements and actions and associates. To clearly define and label these political figures into their historical tendencies is not only permissible, it’s essential to navigating and understanding politics. “Campism” is often thrown as an insult at Marxists who understand history and see reoccurring patterns and types. The reason we study old revolutions and read Lenin is to be able to recognize the new Lenin when we see them, and the reason we learn about Kautsky and his ilk is to recognize them when they appear.
I recognize a Kautskyite opportunist and I say so. He can change if he doesn’t want to be what he is, but he should be labeled clearly
Why? Being an 'American' automatically makes their critique irrelevant?
It makes it imperialist intrigue. His critiques are made of ignorance and he knows nothing about the history, context and conditions of the nation he criticizes. A revolutionary is to avoid imperialist intrigue and attacking the enemy of their current state, as that is chauvinism. He exists as part of the grand western tradition of social chauvinism and does not attempt to break from it.
Very good point, I wasn't viewing the critique from a revolutionary/conflict lens, but more abstractly or theoretically. In the current climate I would argue there are many more worthwhile critiques to be made than those that are against Marxist states, so I do agree that it serves the motives of imperialists even if the critique might be accurate.
Public political figures such as owners and editors of supposedly socialist publications are also held to a different standard in their official media than a random socialist making Marxist critiques as well. He’s not just some leftist on the internet, he wants to sell himself as a major commentator and thought leader. That means he has a very strict duty to avoid imperialist intrigue and he fails at it
The thing is that the relentless trolling campaign against Oz was good (meaning effective) politics in Pennsylvania. It's a shame that it was used to elect a Zionist.
i think the charitable reading is that NJR doesn't think that fetterman's racist schlub routine is scalable and or motivating/leading a progressive movement, and he's certainly being proven right on that.
I definitely agree that his visual presentation would be a liability in most other states. But looking put together is not incompatible with the dirtbag shitposting strategy his campaign pulled off well.
It's also worth noting that Fetterman won against a quack TV doctor totally lacking in both charisma and signature policies. If we're thinking how reproducable his strategy is, the opponent matters.
On top of all that it was also the most obvious case of a rich asshole "moving" somewhere just to get elected since Hillary in New York state.
Maybe Romneys an exception but, ya know, Mormons.
you do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to him"
Yes, a man who hates Marx and Marxism is the most "vindicated" man alive. Dude writes articles that are sometimes good, that's it. lol
Take a look through the rest of the thread -- the guy is the poster child for why we should actually investigate smears like "he hates Marx" instead of taking them at face value.
I say in Why You Should Be A Socialist that [Marx] had “a better understanding than almost anyone else of the way that economics determines the fabric of the social world,” and praise texts of his as “brilliant” and “profound,” full of “great insight.” I am not sure how that can be squared with thinking I have scant regard for him.
His issue with Marxism (in addition to anarchist critiques of it and the broader ML tradition) is basically that some Marxists are dogmatic almost to a religious degree, and can condescend to people who haven't read Das Kapital in its entirety.
He’s never going to be accepted by most people here, I think, simply because of his stance on AES (“atrocities of communist regimes” and “Stalin will never be redeemable, Stalin is socialism’s worst enemy”).
Stalin is socialism’s worst enemy
Close with this statement but needs to figure out that it's fictional Stalin in the minds of the people that has created this problem. The solution is correcting the fiction, not reinforcing it by agreeing with the opposition to socialism that he was bad.
The fictional Stalin they created is a punching bag boogieman rigged up to constantly give easy punches against socialism.
I agree with you, but some (many?) on the Western left would prefer not to be associated with the baggage of the Soviet Union. They believe it will turn people away from socialism.
Well they are wrong and stupid and should be chastised for their idiocy not encouraged
Not to mention he fully supports the genocide in Gaza and rejected a ceasefire.
dogmatic almost to a religious degree,
"Does anyone else think Darwinian evolution is a cult?" same energy
condescend to people who haven't read Das Kapital in its entirety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppose_Book_Worship
Mao's frequent slogan "no investigation, no right to speak" is a theme throughout the essay
Mao: "SHUT THE FUCK UP RADLIBS LOL"
...did you read Oppose Book Worship? Much of it is exactly Robinson’s point about how some Marxists are more obsessed with interpreting Marxist texts than with real-world engagement:
Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, "Show me where it's written in the book."...
The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle.
See also "I haven't read Marx's Capital, but I have the marks of capital all over my body."
Yeah but that's not any real kind of refutation and not worth disregarding the hard fought for victories that Marxists have been able to achieve across the globe, a claim like that can be levied against any sufficiently motivated group. Someone considering themselves a leftist and refusing to engage with it's most expansive and liberatory history and theory calls into question the use of even calling people "leftists" in the first place, what's even the point?
It's fine to disagree with him, but when we're talking about fellow leftists the disagreement should be with what they actually said or did. Caricaturing their positions (or more blatantly misrepresenting them) does nothing but create bitter infighting.
Social imperialists aren’t leftists. Stop repeating this tripe or just admit imperialism isn’t that important to you
fellow leftists
This term only exists to obscure the difference between communists and liberal anticommunists like Robinson and his idol Chompsky. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that every other person involved in the Current Affairs mess was actually lying about what happened to them, and that the one contributor and personal friend of Robinson who wrote the giant counter-narrative passed around in this thread is actually the only one telling the truth about it. I'm not willing to entertain the idea that just because Robinson might not be as personally shitty in his business dealings as is widely believed, that this somehow vindicates his politics. I followed the guy for years, and his politics were absolutely no different than any DSA orbiting radlib like Bhaskar Sunkara who believed that the one true socialism could only be achieved by white Americans voting, going to rallies, buying magazines, and decrying the "authoritarianism" of every successful revolutionary workers movement.
there is room for leftists who don't worship at the alter of scientific socialism, and NJR has been a great, if perhaps slightly less than ideally radical, voice/publisher.
Nope he’s a social fascist Jacobinite (as in the publication), a chauvinist and general weirdo
Sucks to find out what happened with him. I remember his Jordan Peterson write-up being one of the better takedowns that I could actually show to liberals. Breadtube videos were too weird for them.
His F Scott Fitzgerald schtick is simultaneously cringe and compelling
I mistakenly thought he was a total lib from skimming Twitter discourse but always figured he’s an ok guy bc he seems to be amused by one of those niche micro left accounts “impersonating” him
He is maybe somewhat more radical than a succdem at best. I just think it's pretty funny when he's right, or at least when he winds up looking good in hindsight.
Didnt't he get really mad about his writers trying to unionize a few years back or am I confusing him with someone else?
I am hearing that that situation was very misrepresented and he's fine
That's him. Libertarian socialist who got mad at the writers for his magazine trying organize because he believes the magazine needs an editorial line guided by his vision.
Being a magazine editor is the anarchist to Blanquist "I will make Stalin look like an anarchist" pipeline.
Nah he’s a total Jacobin lib. One correct take on a Democrat isn’t sufficient to make them correct
Heartbreaking, the most mediocre person you know just made a great point.
